Hacker News Reader

Comment by greenspot | Hacker News Reader

Good point and I agree that the Virtual Boy comparison is not perfect but two underlying questions remain:

1. Will VR achieve mass adoption in the next 5 years considering the high costs for GPUs and screens with high pixel density?

2. And if we get to a mass compatible price point, will VR be the killer medium the mass is looking for?

So, I still find the adoption rate of the Vive/Rift underwhelming and I do not see the high costs as the main reason. Millions of gamers invest in 3-4k rigs, why not in VR then? Those weak adoption rates might give a glance on the future--or if there will be any future--for VR.

View on HN

1. Yes. You can play VR today with a GTX 970 (under $300). If progress continues, in 5 years a comparable card should cost $50-100.

2. I believe so.

People haven't shifted because the content isn't there yet. There's no League of Legends, Overwatch, etc. The big game dev companies haven't shifted over to VR yet because there are only 200k players - not enough to be worth it. But some are making big bets (IIRC 40% of Valve is working on VR) and it'll only accelerate as the price point drops and more people buy into it.

1. GPUs certainly have halted in price.

2. Mobile VR will probably be the vehicle for mass adoption. From what I remember GearVR has hit over a million units.

> 1. GPUs certainly have halted in price.

I don't know about that one. The Nvidia 1080 GTX costs here in Europe around 750-800 Euros, that's what previously high end multi GPU cards have cost.

It's still a good price for the performance though.

Yes, but he entry level has halved in cost, rather than the upper levels.

But VR is more GPU intensive than playing on a 1080p monitor. From what I remember a Nvidia 970 GTX was recommended by Valve before the 1080 GTX was released which was pretty near highest end back then.

And many VR early adopters are now buying 1080 GTX to improve the often lacking frame rates.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com